Can Republicans please explain to me what part of this prediction map looks unrealistic?

Can Republicans please explain to me what part of this prediction map looks unrealistic?

Thanks

Other urls found in this thread:

gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/
pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/forget-party-unity-the-new-dnc-email-leak-means-th.html
gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2016/jan/27/dont-trust-the-polls-the-systemic-issues-that-make-voter-surveys-unreliable
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bumping my thread

New Hampshire.

RCP has hillary currently polling at +9.3
it went blue 2004, 2008 and 2012

im not sure it's really a swing state

illinois, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania are all going red this year. new hampshire too.

Hillary winning

how much of this is grounded in facts and evidence, versus simply what you want to happen?

its not unrealistic

however several of the blue states are not deep blue at all and could be swung in theory

such as michigan, pa, and wisconsin

that's what im thinking too, but i want to hear from republicans on why they think this map is wrong

Polls aren't evidence

michigan in my opinion seems like the most likely of these three, given the structure of it's economy

wisconsin however seems unlikely. paul ryan couldn't even flip it despite being on the ticket in 2012, so im not sure trump will be able to either

they can't, they just want Trump to win and they are butthurt that is not going to happen, that's all

Sup Forums is always talking about how polls are rigged, yet they loved polls when DT was leading the primaries, so im not sure what to make of this

which polls suggest this?
can you please provide some links or sources?
thanks

84 is gary johnson, right?

i kind of get the feeling too, but i wanted to give them a chance of explaining their position to me

sadly, my thread isn't getting much attention

If he flips NH to cause a tie i am going to lose my shit with laughter

84 are swing states

The MSM has been gaslighting you the entire summer. They're not even trying to pretend they're not lying anymore, they're just lying lying lying and seeing what sticks.

it's 'possible' but highly unlikely, give the stuff i mentioned earlier

NH, PA, and WI are all legitimate swing states. You can't just give them to her.
VA could be a swing state, but it looks like she's won it for now.

>illinois, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania are all going red
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

saved for my collage ;)

can you stay on topic and explain what part of the map looks unrealistic?

the MSM doesn't affect the structure of the electoral college

Sup Forums lives for the happening not the probable.

It does look like Kaine will help lock up what little right wing voters exist in northern VA.

Remember 2012? RCP's predicted map without any toss ups is EXACTLY the same with the outcome.

EXACTLY. LITERALLY NOTHING IS DIFFERENT.
Trump is pretty much BTFO if they hold the election today.

How long had NC been red before 2008? States change over time

what is your definition of a swing state?

NH has gone blue '04, '08 and '12
hill is up +9.3 as i mentioned earlier

PA has been blue since '92
the evidence doesn't seem to be there for WI either

when he wins illinois, the shit eating grin on my face will be as big as the mexican border wall.

i agree, but the question isn't "will the state ever change it's voting affiliation" but "what will it vote this time?

Again it is about the improbable. If you just want Normie ideas and normie views go read face book.

do you have some reasons to believe he will win IL?

please don't say "3 of my neighbors have trump signs on their lawns" or "i have literally met 0 hillary supporters"

i see
so what you're saying is that while you accept that this map is very possible, there's always a chance it could be wrong?

it looks fine.

but hold your horses and wait for the first debate which is four weeks away from yesterday.

the debates will be awesome.

election night will be awesome.

for someone.

thanks for sharing your opinion fellow burger

Paul Ryan and Trump have entirely different voter pools. Although Ryan had a lot more establishment support, Trump has a lot more support from independents and Paulbots. In addition, democratic turnout could be a lot lower this year due to scandals. WI is a swing state in this election along with PA, NH, and places like VA.

PA right now is within the margin of error.
WI and NH are both old polls. They haven't been polled in a month.
What makes them swing states isn't their history, but their likelihood to vote for trump.

what democratic scandals have their been in WI?

Yes.

We get told every election that our meme candidates don't stand a chance but we hype it to fuck and press F to pay respects every time and on the odd occasion we win then all hell breaks loose while CNN and the BBC report about the hacker knows as Anonymous.

>four weeks away from yesterday.

So far away :(

I almost want to find a betting site to see if Hillary will shake her head in a seizure-esque manner, if she'll stroke out, or if she'll freeze in shock from the intense Trump grilling.

I was more speaking general scandals that negatively affect the entire country such as the e-mail scandal with Bernie, or the e-mail scandal with Benghazi.

New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania are all battleground states and could go either way

North Carolina and Missouri are red, no doubt about it

>within the margin of error
what is the margin of error?
which poll are you referring to?
thanks in advance
thanks for sharing your opinion

i'm not sure those qualify as scandals, but to a republican like you i can understand how you would like to see them as such
thanks for your opinion
i disagree with most of your tossup list, but agree that NC and MO are almost certainly red

Primary polls were more difficult to rig

Current polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Independents. They also weigh it based on party affiliation numbers from the 2012 election, however, the Democrats have shrunk severly since then and Gallup puts Dems and Reps at somewhat the same percentage of voters

TL;DR, general election polls are highly unlikely to reflect the outcome of this election

I don't feel like capping it, but if you go to RCP and look at PA, you'll see the most recent poll by Emerson is clinton +3, which is within the margin of error.
The most recent poll before then was a month old.

Associated Press disagrees. The entire lefty press called for the closure of the foundation assap.

>Colorado and New Hampshire are battleground states
lmao the delusion

>California and New York
>going democrat

lmao try again

can you explain how primary polls are more difficult to rig?

any links to voter registration numbers?
it seems that there is no federal registry for party affiliates, and that each state does it separately, so it's a little hard to sift through all the data

same 4 me

Idk if Illinois and Michigan will go red

There are too many niggers and cucks

PA might

They are scandals. One of my friends who is a lesbian and was voting for Hillary changed her mind and is voting Trump after that. Even if it didn't get people to vote Trump, the younger demographics that aren't black are incredibly angry. In addition, even places such as HuffPo and TYT considered the e-mail thing disgraceful and corrupt even if they still support Hillary.

Many demographics of average people and news organizations are outraged because of a set of actions done by the DNC on behalf of Hillary. That is a scandal by all criteria.

You are the delusional one to think it isn't a scandal.

gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

They're not official numbers, but gallup has a decent reputation on these things.

Primary polls are more difficult to rig because you only look at the people within the party. You can't oversample or undersample people you think might agree or disagree with your preferred outcome. That's why so many members of the media instead tried to attack Trump on his high turnout of undereducated, low-income voters

thanks
i just took a look at it
i'd like to point out that this is only one poll of many, and specifically it's the poll that paints the worst picture for hillary

still, it's a data point

he didn't mention anything about the clinton foundation in his post, so i'm not sure what you're referring to

however yes, i too think it ought to be shut down

i kind of think it's delusional as well

i know you're just trolling but here's your (you)

>omg one of my friends agrees with me therefore it's true!

again, for you it may be a scandal, but that doesn't make it true

as for the DNC, i think most people are aware that it is a separate entity from HRC. would be open to seeing evidence that suggests people believing otherwise though!

thank you, i'll read up on it

Florida not red
Ohio not red

Regarding the accuracy of the polls.

my map doesn't stay FL and OH are "not red"
they're defined as tossups
so yes, they could be red
have you stopped to consider that it may be the party identification poll that is off as well?

you'll have to provide the methodology for a deeper look

Ok, maybe I'm stupid (this is a realistic possibility), but what "lying" is that image supposed to show. A plurality of people identify as independent, but ultimately vote either Rep or Dem. That's the most unsurprising thing ever. There's nothing about those charts that appears to be contradictory or even conflicting.

thank you for sharing your opinion

>washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/

Well it was enough of a scandal to get top DNC officials removed, and it is difficult to find any "credible" and unbiased sources on how the DNC e-mail leaks affected public opinion of Hillary since they were taking orders from the DNC and the DNC was colluding with Clinton Lawyers.

Respondents are chosen randomly, m8. Demographics are never split evenly, if that were the case then polls would be useless.

Thanks for the (You), but that doesn't really answer the question. Where is the lying in that image?

I dont know, i said that Hillary was going to win before the campain even started, even before Trump was running, it just makes sense shes going to be the next prez, Trump is fun and all, but he never had a chance of actually winning

it's not my image, i didn't say there was lying
that's true, i don't think there have been credible sources reporting how it's affected public opinion
since we haven't seen many, i obviously have to assume no significant change

>have you stopped to consider that it may be the party identification poll that is off as well?
All this can result in is.
>your polls are wrong
>no u!

Sample of the poll:
>44% of respondents are Democrat
>11% Independent
>34% Republican

Demographics of the general population (aka: Reality)
>30% Democrat
>43% Independent
>26% Republican

Every demographic in that poll is way off. It is not an accurate representation of reality. My argument is that this is true for a majority of polls presented by the propagandists we call mainstream media.

Where'd you get the second set of data from, and what year is it from?

Ohio is solid red, Florida is solid red,

>North Carolina
Hahahahahahaha

what you've done is you've shown me two polls
why am i to assume that one poll is, as you say "aka reality", while the other one isn't?

im not denying that the first poll didn't oversample democrats, but your logic is puzzling

added to the collage

People with a party self-identification are more likely to participate in polls, because they're more politically invested. The proportion is somewhat more leaning Dem, but not by the margin you're thinking. And what it may show, though you don't want to hear it, is that more of the independents that got polled said they leaned Dem than Rep. Remember they don't ask what you're registered as, but what group you identify more with. I think you're in for a rude awakening in November.

okay guys, thats all the time i have for today
OP out; thanks for participating

Thomson Reuters donated between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 to the Clinton foundation.

>Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

>polling
You're literally tumors when there are other threads with real content and important information.

>inb4 you jump to the ylyl thread or whatever nig shit

pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/forget-party-unity-the-new-dnc-email-leak-means-th.html

Well, it seems as if the Bernie or Bust movement is around 3-4 million people and that is pretty damning on Clinton. It is difficult to determine how the leaks have affected that, but it certainly suggests that she is viewed as corrupt.

Also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the most you can say is "we don't know if it has affected her perception". Assuming no change requires evidence.

Do you have evidence nothing has changed?

gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

>Poll to assess party affiliation among voters is a certain distribution.
>Poll to gauge election is shown to oversample democrats and republicans while massively undersampling independents according to the poll which shows what the reality of the distribution is is
>Somehow still accurate

It sounds like you don't understand the polls are showing different things. One shows what the demographics of the voting population is. Another asks a sample that doesn't conform to the results of the aforementioned poll who they are voting for.

trump is winning pa for one

>It sounds like you don't understand the polls are showing different things. One shows what the demographics of the voting population is. Another asks a sample that doesn't conform to the results of the aforementioned poll who they are voting for.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand. The demographics of the voting populace is not the same thing as the demographics of people who respond to polling attempts. And "independent" doesn't mean they don't vote Dem or Rep. It means they don't consider themselves officially a member of a party. Many if not most Americans do not cleanly fit into the boxes labeled Dem or Rep. Independents are people who have a mix of liberal and conservative positions, and who they vote for depends on what issues are most important to them at the time of the election.

Trump will win the popular vote and lose the election.

Probably very tight in PA and lose and same in Virginia, New Hampshire, Wisconsin etc but not enough to turn red.

People will then get angry as to how someone could win the popular vote and lose the election, like Gore in 2000. But this time the side that loses actually has guns and the USA is angry enough that shit might happen

That only goes to show that the polls released are worthless since only 8% of Americans respond to polls in comparison to 80% in the 80s.

theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2016/jan/27/dont-trust-the-polls-the-systemic-issues-that-make-voter-surveys-unreliable

You can't use people who are statistic anomalies by the mere act of participating as representative of the general populace.

>The demographics of the voting populace is not the same thing as the demographics of people who respond to polling attempts
Which makes the polling inaccurate you drooling idiot

Trump will win Illinois.

Demographics of registered voters also isn't the same thing as demographics of ACTUAL voters. Voter turnout in America tends to be abysmal. The kind of people who are invested enough to answer polls are also the ones that are invested enough that they're more likely to vote. The polls do deviate from the norm most of the time, but only by a few percentage points. They're more accurate than you give them credit for. You're just butthurt because they don't show your guy winning. If they did, you sure as hell wouldn't be here ranting about their inaccuracy. You'd be crowing about how awesome your guy is and how his win is clearly inevitable because the polls said so.

non existent?

It's possible that the silent majority can overcome Chicago's blues.

Michigan is 83% white its the union workers that make it blue and trump does better with union workers than any other GOP candidate

Polls are garbage. Take the latest Emerson poll where they use get this.... LANDLINES. Not only that but it uses those registered and those voted in 2012. The media want to present it as a close race for drama and ratings. Trump is walking away with this.

"Silent majority" is the last refuge of a losing campaign. There is no silent majority. The no-shows on election day are just as diverse as the actual voters. If the silent ones turned out, the results wouldn't change much at all.

obama got 69 million in 2008
obama got 65 million in 2012

No way hillary reaches those numbers. Meanwhile based on primary turnout the projection for Trump is 73 Million. It won't even be close.

Based on his economic platform being based on returning heavy industry, Trump may be able to turn the Rust Belt into swing states.

Landline-only polls are notoriously slanted toward conservatives, because they tend to poll mostly old rural people. Rasmussen is a great example, as they always get it wrong by over five percentage points, and always by leaning Republican. When even the landline-only polls show the Republican losing, you should probably go stock up on lube, because there's a major reaming coming.

>first three
no
>penn
very small chance

See Can you still honestly see Trump turning longtime blue states to red?

Its possible for trump to have a significantly higher vote and still lose. Given the way states vote just Pennsylvania and Virginia going blue will be enough to make hilary president.

I have no doubt he will get a lot of votes. But the US system makes it very hard for Republicans right now. If Hilary wins then in 8 years its going to be almost impossible for a republican to win given the shifting demographics .

That's my most desired outcome. Trump getting the popular while still losing might be the straw the breaks the camels back of Federal credibility, and if the Fed gov comes down, the gibs stop flowing and the nogs start starving.

Rasmussen isn't right leaning. They're just horribly inaccurate.

Gravis is right leaning.

>inaccurate
imprecise*

Their results lean right, because they're inaccurate. But they're consistently inaccurate, which makes them still useful. A clock that's set wrong may tell you the wrong time, but if it's not losing time you can still tell the actual time from it if you know how far it deviates. Same is true for polls. Doesn't matter if they're inaccurate as long as they're consistent in their inaccuracy.

can someone tell me how trump supporters are the silent majority. The silent majority is usally the low risk safe candidate. Not the loud one who gets the headlines.

...

>anyone who cites bodies of robust statistical data from mostly legitimate institutions must be chastised and immediately ignored

As is Sup Forums tradition

drinking kool aid so fresh you can taste traces of nipple